08-27-08 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

August 26, 2008 Letter to Joel Hanson and Steve Grittman Page 2 of 3 The court holdings would counsel dropping this type of definition altogether in favor of fire-code based regulations. An alternative approach tries to blunt the main argument against the "family" definition by incorporating the FHA into the definition. Richfield's zoning code contains an example of this method, going to great lengths to explain the public purpose behind the enactment, but more importantly, acknowledging the city's ability to decline enforcement of the rule as a "reasonable accommodation" for the disabled. This approach directly addresses the most active (and most successful) opponents of occupancy limits, the disabled, by incorporating a standard from the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. Granting "reasonable accommodation" potentially defuses any challenge by granting leniency to those most likely to sue. However, some groups -particularly "sober homes" -refuse to apply for any municipal permits, licenses, or variances on principle, taking away the effectiveness of an "escape hatch"-type provision. Also, "reasonable accommodation" only deals with disability, and is not likely to be effective against challenges alleging other forms of discrimination, such as race or national origin. Along with the definition of "family" in Section 902, this topic also impacts the portions of Sections 905, 906 and 907 concerning boarding of more than 2 people, "subject to" the definition of family in 902. Reading this, I note that Section 902 defines "boarding house" and "lodging house" as letting rooms in a dwelling to three or more people, but then the terms are not used again within the Zoning Code. It would seem that the purpose of these provisions in 905, 906 and 907 is already accomplished by not including "boarding house" or "lodging house" as a permitted or conditional use in the districts. B. Statutorily protected uses Related to the "family" issue are the handful of statutory exceptions to local zoning authority concerning group homes and day care facilities. These normally take the form of defining certain uses as "permitted single-family uses," for which cities are not permitted to regulate any differently than blood- or marriage-related families. A summary of these laws: § 462.357 - In any district permitting single family residential, must allow: a) Group homes licensed by the Department of Health under Minn. Stat. Chapter 144D, up to 6 people; b) day-care facilities licensed by Depar•cment of Human Services under § 245A.14, up to 12 children or 14 as a "group family" day care. In any multi-family district, must allow all of the above facilities up to 16 residents/children, though City can require CUP for conditions imposed upon similar occupancies or intensities (parking requirements, etc.) § 245A.11 - In any district permitting single-family residential, must allow DHS-licensed residential facilities of 6 or fewer residents. In any multi-family housing area, must allow group homes of up to 16, but can require CUP. § 241.021 -Department of Corrections may license group residential homes similar to (or overlapping with) DHS licensing as halfway houses. Zoning laws are not directly mentioned but the statute requires DOC to "give notice" to cities before issuing a license, implying that DOC licensing trumps local zoning regulations.